Security expenses adding up for Perry’s out-of-state trips

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential poll numbers may be in the basement, but one thing continues to rise – the cost to taxpayers of providing security for his out-of-state trips.

The tally for September alone shows $397,714 in expenses for 30 out-of-state trips by the law enforcement detail that provides security to him and his wife, Anita, according to records released Monday by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

That brings the total for such trips to $762,680 from his November 2010 re-election through Sept. 28. The expenses include such items as airfare, food and lodging for the security detail.

Taxpayers pick up the tab for Perry’s security detail even though his direct travel costs are generally paid by his campaign. The costs associated with his presidential run come after state budget cutbacks in programs helped offset a multibillion-dollar revenue shortfall.

“I suspect it’ll be a matter of how people feel about Perry whether or not this bothers them,” said Paul Brace, professor of political science at Rice University.

Brace said he wasn’t denying Perry’s need for security, but speaking of the extra costs associated with his presidential run.

“There are taxpayers who are going to be concerned that this wasn’t an appropriate expenditure in general, but given the, I think, generally lackluster performance of Governor Perry in the presidential race, even those who are supporting him might think it was a pretty bad investment,” Brace said.

No reimbursement

Among Perry’s September trips were debates in Florida and California; fundraising in California and New York; and trips to Iowa, Michigan and South Carolina.

Even before he announced for president, Perry said when asked about security costs that it would be appropriate for the state to foot the bill, asserting that regardless of whether he aimed at the White House, “I’m going to be promoting Texas wherever I go.”

Perry’s representatives have said DPS, not the governor, sets security policy; that Perry is governor all the time, regardless of his location; and that there is no plan for the campaign to reimburse the state for security detail expenses.

Campaign spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said Monday that position hasn’t changed.

Obama also questioned

Perry’s not the only candidate who has faced questions about the implications to taxpayers of his campaign, noted Jerry Polinard, professor of political science at the University of Texas-Pan American.

“We’ve seen the same criticism of President Obama in the past month by the Republican Party, with the same answer given by the administration,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Obama’s “extensive travels this year have opened the president to criticism from Republicans that he is intertwining campaigning and governing” with visits to battleground states, and that most of the cost “is typically borne by taxpayers.”

The Journal noted that the president’s travel for White House business is taxpayer-paid, while his campaign pays for political events. The expenses are divided if a trip is for both types of events.

“This is one of those gray areas that comes up all the time. They criticized President (George W.) Bush and more recently Obama for using Air Force One to travel around the country right before an election, and the travel seems to correspond remarkably well to their strategic needs in the forthcoming election in large measure. And what are you going to do?” Brace said. “He’s got a security detail.”

New law takes effect

The DPS provided summary expenses for the security detail through Sept. 28 in response to a public information request, but it didn’t provide more recent expenses.

That’s because a law took effect on that date that provides for the agency to release quarterly summaries of the expenses.

The agency’s spokesman, Tom Vinger, said no date was available late Monday for when the quarterly summary would be released.

Bruce Buchanan, professor of political science at the University of Texas in Austin, said gubernatorial security is “part of the cost of doing business” for large states, agreeing with Brace that reaction to the size of the cost is likely to be mixed depending on people’s view of Perry’s run.